On Saturday 23 June 2007 10:52:33 Duncan wrote: > Peter Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted > > top - 09:04:59 up 23 min, 5 users, load average: 3.60, 4.79, 3.91 > > Tasks: 124 total, 2 running, 122 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > > > > Cpu0: 0.3%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.3%id, [zeroes] > > Cpu1: 0.0%us, 0.3%sy, 99.7%ni, 0.0%id, [zeroes] > > > > PID USER PR NI S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND > > 5279 prh 34 19 S 50 1.0 6:53.97 1 setiathome-5.12 > > 5280 prh 34 19 S 50 1.0 6:54.08 0 setiathome-5.12 > > > > I don't think this is a scheduling problem; it goes deeper, so that the > > kernel doesn't have a consistent picture of which processor is which. > > Critical question here, is that in SMP Irix or SMP Solaris mode? (See > the top manpage if you don't know what I mean.) Asked another way, is > that displaying percent of total CPU time (both CPUs) or percent of > total divided by number of CPUs (so percent of one CPU)?
That's another oddity. I press <I> (capital letter i) and /top/ says "Irix mode off" and shows half the previous percentage CPU in the process lines: 25 in the example above. I then press <I> again and it says "Irix mode on" and shows the 50s again. Is this backwards, or is my utter confusion showing? :-( I want it to show: - for each CPU, the percent to which it is loaded; and, - for each process, how much of a CPU's time it is consuming. The presence of two CPUs requires two CPU lines and allows for two lots of processes. That seems logical to me. Is it Irix mode or Solaris? This morning /top/ is showing this: --- top - 10:51:55 up 2:22, 5 users, load average: 2.43, 2.34, 2.60 Tasks: 121 total, 4 running, 117 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu0 : 0.3%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.3%id, [zeroes] Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.3%sy, 99.7%ni, 0.0%id, [zeroes] PID USER PR NI S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND 5270 prh 34 19 S 50 0.9 67:55.08 1 setiathome-5.12 5271 prh 34 19 S 50 1.1 67:57.80 1 einstein_S5R2_4 --- So CPU1 is fully loaded and CPU0 is idling. Gkrellm shows the same. The box has been running for 2 hours from cold and I haven't tampered with anything; BOINC starts from /etc/init.d/local. When /top/ is behaving this way my problem seems to be one of scheduling, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. > I'm not sure where your bug is, but [...] the problem appears to be way > deeper than scheduling. I'd guess it's ultimately a kernel bug, possibly > due to a hardware bug That's my thought too. > [...] you might wish to file it on top initially, just to see if they've > seen [anything] similar and can tell you what's going on. Unless you want > to double-check patching status yourself, you might as well file the bug > with Gentoo first, in case it's a Gentoo bug. They'll probably end up > closing it "upstream", but at least then when you file it upstream, you > can say you've cleared it with Gentoo first. I'll do that, but I'll wait a day or two to see what else comes up here. > You definitely have a strange one here, and I'd /love/ to see what the > real experts have to say about it! Mm, me too. -- Rgds Peter Humphrey Linux Counter 5290, Aug 93 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
